SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 228031. January 18, 2017.]
ALLAN GUACENA, petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 18 January 2017 which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 228031 — (Allan Guacena v. People of the Philippines)
This petition assails the February 27, 2015 Decision 1 and the August 25, 2016 Resolution 2 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR No. 02188, which affirmed the September 18, 2012 Decision 3 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 24, Iloilo City (RTC) in Criminal Case No. 03-58028, finding petitioner Allan Guacena (Guacena) guilty of frustrated murder.
Guacena was charged with the crime of frustrated murder under Article 248, in relation to Articles 6 and 50, of the Revised Penal Code (RPC). Upon arraignment, he pleaded "not guilty." Thereafter, trial ensued.
Evidence of the Prosecution
The prosecution presented the victim, Julius Ronald Pacificador (Pacificador), and Dr. Maximo Nadala (Dr. Nadala), as its witnesses. Their combined testimonies tended to establish the following:
In September 2001, Pacificador met Guacena through a certain Eddie Balgoa (Balgoa), who accompanied him to Guacena's house in Bakhaw, Madurriao, Iloilo City, to buy shabu. At that time, Guacena did not sell them shabu as he intended to clear their names with his boss. A week later, Pacificador and Balgoa returned, and only then did Guacena sell them shabu.
In June 2002, Guacena called up Pacificador informing him that he and Balgoa were in the watchlist of Narcotics Command (NARCOM). Guacena told Pacificador that he should pay up P3,000.00 every week so that he would not be arrested.
Later on, in August 2002, Pacificador learned that the police raided Balgoa's house. Two (2) days after Balgoa's arrest, Guacena called him up again and threatened him that if he would not pay up P3,000.00 every week, he would be the next to be apprehended. Pacificador, however, insisted that he could not pay the amount demanded.
On the evening of September 13, 2002, Pacificador received another call from Guacena asking him if he wanted to buy shabu and he agreed. Before leaving his house, however, he changed his mind. Still, he proceeded to meet Guacena to tell him that he would stop buying shabu.
Pacificador drove his way to a mall where he and Guacena agreed to meet up. Upon arrival, he saw the latter with a certain Pabong waiting beneath the mall's overpass. Pacificador stopped his car at the place where Guacena and Pabong were waiting. When he rolled down the window at the passenger side of his car, he saw Guacena laughing. Without any warning, Guacena fired his gun at Pacificador hitting the latter in his right arm, right chest, right side of the abdomen, and between his left index and middle finger. Pacificador stepped on the accelerator to escape, but he lost control and rammed another vehicle and a lamp post. He was then brought to the hospital, where he underwent three (3) operations. Pacificador spent a total of P436,641.46 for his hospitalization.
Evidence of the Defense
The defense presented Guacena as its sole witness. He claimed that on the evening of September 13, 2002, he was at home sleeping; that he heard the incident involving Pacificador only through a radio broadcast; and that his house was a about a kilometer away from the mall where Pacificador was shot.
The RTC Ruling
In its September 18, 2012 Decision, the RTC found Guacena guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of frustrated murder. Accordingly, he was sentenced to suffer the indeterminate sentence of eight (8) years and one (1) day of prision mayor, as minimum, to fourteen (14) years, eight (8) months and one (1) day of reclusion temporal, as maximum, and to pay Pacificador the amount of P1.5 million as actual damages.
The RTC gave more credence to Pacificador, who positively identified Guacena as his assailant. It stated that Pacificador's positive identification of Guacena outweighed the latter's defense of alibi. The dispositive portion of the decision reads: CAIHTE
WHEREFORE, the court finds the accused Allan Guacena guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the felony charged in the Information and is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of imprisonment, applying the indeterminate sentence law, from 8 years and 1 day of prision mayor as minimum to 14 years, 8 months and 1 day of reclusion temporal as maximum and to pay the private complainant Julius Ronald Pacificador the sum of Php1.5 million as actual damages.
SO ORDERED. 4
Aggrieved, Guacena appealed to the CA.
The CA Ruling
In its assailed February 27, 2015 Decision, the CA affirmed Guacena's conviction. It found that the attack on Pacificador was attended by treachery. The CA observed that at the time of the attack, Pacificador was not in a position to defend himself as he did not suspect that Guacena would fire shots at him because he saw the latter laughing when he opened the car window. It concluded that Guacena's act of shooting Pacificador as soon as the latter rolled down the car window indicated that he consciously and deliberately adopted such means in order to insure the execution of his attack without risk to himself arising from any defense which Pacificador might make.
The CA cited the testimony of Dr. Nadala that Pacificador's gunshot wounds on the right side of his chest and abdomen could have caused his death had it not been for the timely medical intervention.
Guacena moved for reconsideration, but his motion was denied by the CA in its assailed August 25, 2016 Resolution.
Hence, this petition.
ISSUE
WHETHER THE GUILT OF THE ACCUSED FOR THE CRIME CHARGED HAS BEEN PROVEN BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.
Guacena argues that the testimony of Pacificador should not be given credence as the latter was a drug user, thus, an incredible witness. He points out that the police officers recovered drug paraphernalia from Pacificador's car on the night of the shooting incident.
The Court's Ruling
The petition lacks merit.
The elements of frustrated murder are: (1) the accused intended to kill his victim; 5 (2) the victim sustained fatal or mortal wound/s but did not die because of timely medical assistance; 6 and (3) any of the qualifying circumstances for murder under Article 248 of the RPC, as amended, is present.
First, it is beyond question that Guacena intended to kill Pacificador. Intent to kill may be proved by evidence of the following: (a) motive; (b) the nature or number of weapons used in the commission of the crime; (c) the nature and number of wounds inflicted on the victim; (d) the manner the crime was committed; and (e) words uttered by the offender at the time the injuries are inflicted by him on the victim. 7 In this case, Guacena shot Pacificador in his right arm, right chest, right side of his abdomen, and between his left index and middle fingers. Clearly, the nature and number of wounds inflicted upon Pacificador demonstrated that Guacena intended to kill him.
Second, Pacificador suffered two (2) fatal gunshot wounds — one on his right chest and one on the right side of his abdomen, which injured his small and large intestines. These two (2) injuries would have resulted in his death were it not for the timely medical intervention given to him.
Finally, the commission of the crime was attended by the qualifying circumstance of treachery. Paragraph 16, Article 14 of the RPC defines treachery as the direct employment of means, methods, or forms in the execution of the crime against persons which tend directly and specially to insure its execution, without risk to the offender arising from the defense which the offended party might make.
In order for treachery to be properly appreciated, two (2) elements must be present, namely: (1) at the time of the attack, the victim was not in a position to defend himself; and (2) the accused consciously and deliberately adopted the particular means, methods, or forms of attack employed by him. The essence of treachery is that the attack was deliberate and without warning, done in a swift and unexpected way, affording the hapless, unarmed and unsuspecting victim no chance to resist or escape. 8
In this case, Guacena suddenly and unexpectedly fired at Pacificador when the latter rolled down the window of his car. Pacificador did not suspect that Guacena would fire at him as he merely intended to inform the latter that he would no longer buy shabu from him. The suddenness of the attack caught him by surprise and in a position that precluded him from defending himself, thus, ensuring the execution of the crime. DETACa
Guacena's defense of denial, aside from being self-serving, was unsubstantiated and, thus, carried little weight in law. The trial court correctly gave more credence to the evidence of the prosecution.
Proper penalty
The CA and the RTC properly sentenced Guacena to an indeterminate penalty of eight (8) years and one (1) day of prision mayor, as minimum, to fourteen (14) years, eight (8) months and one (1) day of reclusion temporal, as maximum.
The award of damages, however, must be modified. In People v. Jugueta, 9 the Court stated that when the crime committed was frustrated murder, the victim must be awarded civil indemnity of P75,000.00, moral damages of P75,000.00 and exemplary damages of P75,000.00. Consequently, the accused must be ordered to pay actual damages in the amount of P436,641.46, civil indemnity in the amount of P75,000.00, moral damages in the amount of P75,000.00, and exemplary damages in the amount of P75,000.00.
The Court must also impose interest on all the monetary awards for damages at the legal rate of six percent (6%) per annum from the date of finality of this resolution until fully paid. 10
WHEREFORE, the September 18, 2012 Decision of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 24, Iloilo City, in Criminal Case No. 03-58028, is MODIFIED to read as follows:
WHEREFORE, the Court finds accused Allan Guacena GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of Frustrated Murder and hereby sentences him to suffer the penalty of eight (8) years and One (1) Day of prision mayor, as minimum, to Fourteen (14) Years, Eight (8) Months, and One (1) Day of reclusion temporal, as maximum, and to pay Julius Ronald Pacificador the amounts of P436,641.46 as actual damages; P75,000.00 as civil indemnity; P75,000.00 as moral damages; and P75,000.00 as exemplary damages. The amount of damages awarded shall earn interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of finality of judgment until fully paid. HEITAD
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) MA. LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of CourtBy:TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Penned by Associate Justice Ma. Luisa C. Quijano-Padilla with Associate Justice Edgardo L. delos Santos and Associate Justice Marie Christine Azcarraga-Jacob, concurring; rollo, pp. 19-33.
2.Id. at 36-37.
3. The RTC decision was not attached.
4. As stated in the CA decision; rollo, p. 23 (The RTC decision was not attached).
5.Cirera v. People, G.R. No. 181843, July 14, 2014, 730 SCRA 27, 42.
6.People v. Labiaga, 714 Phil. 77, 87 (2013).
7.Martinez v. Court of Appeals, 549 Phil. 683, 709 (2007).
8.People v. Dolorido, 654 Phil. 467, 476 (2011).
9. G.R. No. 202124, April 5, 2016.
10.People v. Palma y Varcas, G.R. No. 212151, February 18, 2015, 751 SCRA 233, 242.